Why is "Call Me Ishmael" considered one of, if not the greatest opening lines in literary history?
C.H. Brewitt-Taylor's 1959 Translation of "Romance of the Three Kingdoms" starts with "Empires wax and wane; states cleave asunder and coalesce."
Moss Roberts' 2000 translation of the same starts with "The empire, long divided, must unite; long united, must divide.
Which is more /lit/? I prefer the first.
Because everyone can reference it and pretend to have read the book.
>>7442125
It's not though
>>7442125
Because it does a lot in few words. It gives the reader the sense that the narrator may not be entirely truthful about events (he says 'call me ishmel', not 'my name is ishmael') he describes. It also gives us a glimpse into his character: we learn in three words that he (may be) guarded, that he has reasons for hiding his identity.
All in all, it gives us a lot to work with in only three words.
>>7442125
Only murricans consider it great.
>>7442132
I think anyone writing the first in the year 2000 would be seen as a pretentious little shit
(it is a nice translation though)
>>7442170
It tells us everything we need to know about the narrator in three words, and it gives us an idea of what to expect and how to look into things for the rest of the book. If you're familiar with Bible stories and actually finish Moby-Dick, you understand why Ishmael specifically is important, especially in contrast to Ahab.
>>7442125
There isn’t always a very logic and precise reason for why something is famous; many times is just a congregation of several factors. For example: Moby Dick is a novel of great literary quality, so that is one reason; but Moby Dick was also written in English, a language that was achieving worldwide dominance in the XIX and XX centuries, another reason; there is also the fact that the U.S. was becoming an economic power (and naturally propagating its own culture in the world), a third reason.
As for the opening itself, there is nothing particularly extraordinary about it. For me this one opening is much more remarkable: “The sun shone, having no alternative, on the nothing new.”. Yet the opening of Moby Dick has its charm: it’s like a broad and confident stroke of the brush, a simple, direct and forward-facing phrase that is almost in contrast with the highly poetic and metaphorical language of the whole work that will follow.
People always make the same question about the Mona Lisa: why so famous? Well, it certainly it isn’t that technically and aesthetically superior to many other paintings in the world, so why all the fuss about it? Again, it is a congregation of several factors. First, it is a work (one of the rare finished works) by Leonardo Da Vinci, a man who was famous already on his lifetime and who was to become one of the most famous people in history, so nobody can simply look at the painting and forget the mind behind it. It was also a work that Leonardo himself love it, carrying it with him for many years. Then there is the robbery of the painting, a fact that was all over the news when it happened, and also when the painting was restituted. But there is also the painting itself: it is a very mysterious work. I read somewhere that it is a convergence of all Leonardo’s obsessions: anatomy; the sfumato and the techniques of painting; the mathematics of proportion and geometry (Leonardo was bad in most of the fields of mathematics, but had more naturality with geometry); the study of colors and durable pigments; the geology of the terrains behind the figure; and once again the soft smile and the tender eyes of so many of his angels and madonna’s. The painting is almost an image of Leonardo’s own soul, his own spirit smiling with irony and confidence to the world: the smile of the man who knows, the sage that comprehends but doesn’t scream or growl its doctrines to humanity, but enjoys its own knowledge and illumination in silence.
Tl;dr: the fame of something is not only due to its quality, for there is several works of equal quality that don’t achieve the same fame; it is the reunion of several different factors (some of them just blind luck) that makes something a hit.
>>7442156
It is though. Lolita is another one.
I think the whole opening paragraph is great, but people aren't going to memorize that much.
Also, those three words tell us a lot about our narrator. Reference to Genesis (Melville's life is similar to that of Ishmael's, making the book maybe partially autobiographical). Sets up the many other biblical references in the book.
It's simple and to the point.
It is the opening of one of the best novels every written, so maybe the fame of the opening line comes from the fame of the book (would it be so good of an opening line if the rest of the book sucked?)
>>7442227
You're too good for this place, anon.
>>7442202
I don't think so. I think they have different meanings. The first one is more general, the life cycle of empires. The second one is focusing exclusively on the unification and division of empires. It has a different connotation and puts you in a different state of mind. I like the first one more. The first one reminds me of a story, the second one sounds like an essay and a bad one. Imagine an 8th grader prefacing his oral report with that second quote. I can hear the awkward, disinterested silence.
>>7442132
Depends on what the original said, they have slightly different meanings.
>>7442227
Stop being right and eloquent
>>7442227
I don't know why anons are complementing your heap of shite comment. The alternative opening line you offer is poor, and the remainder opined is incoherent and of little value.
>>7442759
Eew, so hostile.
